Dataset Information

Trends in characteristics of the recipients of new prescription stimulants between years 2010 and 2020 in the United States: An observational cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Stimulant prescriptions increased by 250% in the United States from 2006-2016 while diagnoses for ADHD minimally increased. There is insufficient data regarding who may be the recipients of these new stimulant prescriptions and safety of stimulants have come under scrutiny in some populations. We aim to describe trends in stimulant prescriptions across biopsychosocial patient level factors between 2010 and 2020.

Methods

We applied a retrospective observational cohort design utilizing electronic health records from 52 healthcare organizations sourced from the TriNetX research network database in the United States. We assessed new stimulant prescriptions across biopsychosocial variables for recipients of prescriptions. We utilized linear regression to assess longitudinal trends of all participants and also conducted an age stratified logistic regression analysis.

Findings

There was an increase in stimulants to people categorized as white (OR 1.24 CI 1.20-1.28), female (OR 1.28 CI 1.23-1.31), and to those with diagnosed anxiety disorders (OR 1.39 CI 1.35-1.44) as well as obesity (OR 1.34 CI 1.28-1.41). The average age of recipients increased throughout the study, and among people sixty-five and older, there was an increase in prescriptions to people with multiple cardiovascular risk factors.

Interpretation

Prescription stimulant dispensing may have liberalized during the study period in some demographics as a greater number of new prescriptions were dispensed to individuals with risk of adverse outcomes (i.e. older individuals, obese individuals, and geriatric patients with CV risk factors) between 2010 and 2020. Similar trends in prescription medications were witnessed through the opioid epidemic and warrant attention given concerning trends with illicit stimulants. Additional research that investigates patient and provider motivation for stimulant prescriptions, as well as risk perception of stimulants, may be warranted.

Funding

This study was made possible by institutional resources at Penn State Hershey Medical Center.

SUBMITTER: Brumbaugh S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9257326 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStimulants are considered the first-line treatment for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in the US and they are used in other indications. Stimulants are also diverted for non-medical purposes. Ethnic and regional differences in ADHD diagnosis and in stimulant use have been identified in earlier research. The objectives of this report were to examine the pharmacoepidemiological pattern of these controlled substances over the past decade and to conduct a regional analysis.MethodsData (drug weights) reported to the US Drug Enforcement Administration's Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System for four stimulants (amphetamine, methylphenidate, lisdexamfetamine, and methamphetamine) were obtained from 2006 to 2016 for Unites States/Territories. Correlations between state level use (mg/person) and Hispanic population were completed.ResultsAmphetamine use increased 2.5 fold from 2006 to 2016 (7.9 to 20.0 tons). Methylphenidate use, at 16.5 tons in 2006, peaked in 2012 (19.4 tons) and subsequently showed a modest decline (18.6 tons in 2016). The consumption per municipality significantly increased 7.6% for amphetamine and 5.5% for lisdexamfetamine but decreased 2.7% for methylphenidate (all p < .0005) from 2015 to 2016. Pronounced regional differences were also observed. Lisdexamfetamine use in 2016 was over thirty-fold higher in the Southern US (43.8 mg/person) versus the Territories (1.4 mg/person). Amphetamine use was about one-third lower in the West (48.1 mg/person) relative to the Northeastern (75.4 mg/person, p < .05) or the Midwestern (69.9 mg/person, p ? .005) states. States with larger Hispanic populations had significantly lower methylphenidate (r(49) = -0.63), lisdexamfetamine (B, r(49) = -0.49), and amphetamine (r(49) = -0.43) use.ConclusionsTotal stimulant usage doubled in the last decade. There were dynamic changes but also regional disparities in the use of stimulant medications. Future research is needed to better understand the reasons for the sizable regional and ethnic variations in use of these controlled substances.

Project description:BackgroundWhile extensive evidence suggests that the economic recession has had far reaching effects on many economic sectors, little is known regarding its impact on prescription drug utilization. The purpose of this study is to describe the association between state-level unemployment rates and retail sales of seven therapeutic classes (statins, antidepressants, antipsychotics, angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors, opiates, phosphodiesterase [PDE] inhibitors and oral contraceptives) in the United States.MethodsUsing a retrospective mixed ecological design, we examined retail prescription sales using IMS Health Xponent™ from September 2007 through July 2010, and we used the Bureau of Labor Statistics to derive population-based rates and mixed-effects modeling with state-level controls to examine the association between unemployment and utilization. Our main outcome measure was state-level utilization per 100,000 people for each class.ResultsMonthly unemployment levels and rates of use of each class varied substantially across the states. There were no statistically significant associations between use of ACE inhibitors or SSRIs/SNRIs and average unemployment in analyses across states, while for opioids and PDE inhibitors there were small statistically significant direct associations, and for the remaining classes inverse associations. Analyses using each state as its own control collectively exhibited statistically significant positive associations between increases in unemployment and prescription drug utilization for five of seven areas examined. This relationship was greatest for statins (on average, a 4% increase in utilization per 1% increased unemployment) and PDE inhibitors (3% increase in utilization per 1% increased unemployment), and lower for oral contraceptives and atypical antipsychotics.ConclusionWe found no evidence of an association between increasing unemployment and decreasing prescription utilization, suggesting that any effects of the recent economic recession have been mitigated by other market forces.

Project description:It is important to document patterns of prescription drug use to inform both clinical practice and research.To evaluate trends in prescription drug use among adults living in the United States.Temporal trends in prescription drug use were evaluated using nationally representative data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Participants included 37,959 noninstitutionalized US adults, aged 20 years and older. Seven NHANES cycles were included (1999-2000 to 2011-2012), and the sample size per cycle ranged from 4861 to 6212.Calendar year, as represented by continuous NHANES cycle.Within each NHANES cycle, use of prescription drugs in the prior 30 days was assessed overall and by drug class. Temporal trends across cycles were evaluated. Analyses were weighted to represent the US adult population.Results indicate an increase in overall use of prescription drugs among US adults between 1999-2000 and 2011-2012 with an estimated 51% of US adults reporting use of any prescription drugs in 1999-2000 and an estimated 59% reporting use of any prescription drugs in 2011-2012 (difference, 8% [95% CI, 3.8%-12%]; P for trend <.001). The prevalence of polypharmacy (use of ?5 prescription drugs) increased from an estimated 8.2% in 1999-2000 to 15% in 2011-2012 (difference, 6.6% [95% CI, 4.4%-8.2%]; P for trend <.001). These trends remained statistically significant with age adjustment. Among the 18 drug classes used by more than 2.5% of the population at any point over the study period, the prevalence of use increased in 11 drug classes including antihyperlipidemic agents, antidepressants, prescription proton-pump inhibitors, and muscle relaxants.In this nationally representative survey, significant increases in overall prescription drug use and polypharmacy were observed. These increases persisted after accounting for changes in the age distribution of the population. The prevalence of prescription drug use increased in the majority of, but not all, drug classes.

Project description:Although annual mortality trends for prostate cancer were stabilized in recent years, understanding the exact treatment changes is necessary for optimal management. Utilization of not-otherwise specified (NOS) treatments for prostate cancer was unclear. Thus, this study aimed to analyze trends in treatment for prostate cancer in the U.S. from 2010 to 2015 and examine whether the treatment for the prostate cancer in the U.S. is compliant with clinical practice guidelines. Using joinpoint regression models, we examined trends in the rate and proportion of age-standardized utilization (ASUR and ASUP) of treatments for prostate cancer diagnosed during 2010-2015 in the U.S. based on the data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER, 2018 data-release, with linkage to active surveillance/watchful waiting [AS/WW]) cancer registry program. Among 316,690 men with prostate cancer diagnosed during 2010-2015, ASUR and ASUP for radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, AS/WW and NOS treatment were 32.7, 34.4, 10.0 and 40.1 per 100,000, and 27.9%, 29.3%, 8.5% and 34.2%, respectively. Trends in the overall ASUR for prostate cancer treatments differed by cancer risk group, patients' age, race/ethnicity, Gleason score, insurance status, and the average education level, average poverty-level and foreign-born person percentage of the patient's residence-county, but not by rural-urban continuum or region. ASUP of radical prostatectomy decreased from 9.8% in 2010 to 4.8% in 2015 (annual percent change [APC] = -12.0%, 95% CI, -15.9 to -7.9%), and the decrease was observed in all different risk groups. ASUP of AS/WW increased from 16.4% in 2010 to 30.2% in 2013 (APC = 22.7%, 95% CI, 4.6 to 44.0%) and then remained stable through 2013 to 2015 (APC = 1.9%, 95% CI, -24.1 to 36.9%). The increasing tendency of AS/WW only occurred in the low-risk and intermediate-risk groups. The ASUP of NOS treatment has increased from 32.3% in 2010 to 36.8% in 2015 (P<0.01). In conclusion, ASUR and ASUP for prostate cancer treatments, including NOS treatment, had changed during 2010-2015. Their trends appeared to differ by cancer risk-group, age, race/ethnicity, Gleason score and socioeconomic factors. Future studies are warranted to understand the impacts of upward trends in ASUP of NOS treatments and AS/WW on patient survival and prostate cancer mortality.

Project description:ImportanceHigh and continually increasing pharmaceutical drug spending is a major health and health policy concern in the United States.ObjectiveTo demonstrate trends in prices among popular brand-name prescription drugs.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation of drug prices focuses on 49 top-selling brand-name medications in the United States. Pharmacy claims data from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2017, were obtained from Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis, a database that includes data from more than 35 million individuals with private pharmaceutical insurance. Drugs that exceeded $500 million in US sales or $1 billion in worldwide sales were examined.Main outcomes and measuresThe median sum of out-of-pocket and insurance costs paid by patients or insurers for common prescriptions, presented annually and monthly, was the primary outcome.ResultsIn total, 132 brand-name prescription drugs were identified in 2017 that met the inclusion criteria. Of this total, the study focused on 49 top-selling drugs that exceeded 100 000 pharmacy claims. Substantial cost increases among these drugs was near universal, with a 76% median cost increase from January 2012 through December 2017, and almost all drugs (48 [98%]) displaying regular annual or biannual price increases. Of the 36 drugs that have been available since 2012, 28 (78%) have seen an increase in insurer and out-of-pocket costs by more than 50%, and 16 (44%) have more than doubled in price. Insulins (ie, Novolog, Humalog, and Lantus) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (ie, Humira and Enbrel) demonstrated highly correlated price increases, coinciding with some of the largest growth in drug costs. Relative price changes did not differ between drugs that entered the market in the past 3 to 6 years and those that have been on the market longer (number of drugs, 13 vs 36; median, 29% increase from January 2015 through December 2017; P = .81) nor between drugs with or without a Food and Drug Administration-approved therapeutic equivalent (number of drugs, 17 vs 32; median, 79% vs 73%; P = .21). Changes in prices paid were highly correlated with third-party estimates of changes in drug net prices (ρ = 0.55; P = 3.8 × 10-5), suggesting that the current rebate system, which incentivizes high list prices and greater reliance on rebates, increases overall costs.Conclusions and relevanceThe growth of drug spending in the United States associated with government-protected market exclusivity is likely to continue; greater price transparency is warranted.

Project description:ImportanceAccess to appropriate prescription medications, use of inappropriate or ineffective treatments, and adverse drug events are public health concerns among US children and adolescents.ObjectiveTo evaluate trends in use of prescription medications among US children and adolescents.Design, setting, and participantsUS children and adolescents aged 0 to 19 years in the 1999-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)-serial cross-sectional, nationally representative surveys of the civilian noninstitutionalized population.ExposuresSex, age, race and Hispanic origin, household income and education, insurance status, current health status.Main outcomes and measuresUse of any prescription medications or 2 or more prescription medications taken in the past 30 days; use of medications by therapeutic class; trends in medication use across 4-year periods from 1999-2002 to 2011-2014. Data were collected though in-home interview and direct observation of the prescription container.ResultsData on prescription medication use were available for 38 277 children and adolescents (mean age, 10 years; 49% girls). Overall, use of any prescription medication in the past 30 days decreased from 24.6% (95% CI, 22.6% to 26.6%) in 1999-2002 to 21.9% (95% CI, 20.3% to 23.6%) in 2011-2014 (β = -0.41 percentage points every 2 years [95% CI, -0.79 to -0.03]; P = .04), but there was no linear trend in the use of 2 or more prescription medications (8.5% [95% CI, 7.6% to 9.4%] in 2011-2014). In 2011-2014, the most commonly used medication classes were asthma medications (6.1% [95% CI, 5.4% to 6.8%]), antibiotics (4.5% [95% CI, 3.7% to 5.5%]), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications (3.5% [95% CI, 2.9% to 4.2%]), topical agents (eg, dermatologic agents, nasal steroids) (3.5% [95% CI, 3.0% to 4.1%]), and antihistamines (2.0% [95% CI, 1.7% to 2.5%]). There were significant linear trends in 14 of 39 therapeutic classes or subclasses, or in individual medications, with 8 showing increases, including asthma and ADHD medications and contraceptives, and 6 showing decreases, including antibiotics, antihistamines, and upper respiratory combination medications.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study of US children and adolescents based on a nationally representative survey, estimates of prescription medication use showed an overall decrease in use of any medication from 1999-2014. The prevalence of asthma medication, ADHD medication, and contraceptive use increased among certain age groups, whereas use of antibiotics, antihistamines, and upper respiratory combination medications decreased.